Stephen Hawking's Final Paper On How To Find Parallel Universes

Hawking was a brilliant man whose whole life was devoted to understanding the most extreme phenomena in the universe.

I, for one, will be happy to peruse his latest and last paper.

Kinda like a reverse-patsy strawman Wizard of Oz, "pen name". Like the Banconians used the Shakespeare title to code their messages through.

Perhaps, behind the "curtain", a counsel of "high priests of information" possibly delivering drip-drip tested and proven peer reviewed information
about reality through a puppet vegetable placed on an academic pedestal complete with biographical motion picture to solidify the illusion?

Seems like an apt and reasonable concept for the biggest, most impactful secrets of science, to in effect direct the development of (this)
civilization.

if that's so, then IF the theory is followed through with, imagine if the initial goal of testing communication with the first parallel dimension,
would be to actually contact the OTHER Stephen Hawking over there.

For anyone smart enough to understand it or those who would like to stretch their mind Stephen Hawking and Thomas Hertog's paper has now been
published and is available to read.

The usual theory of inflation breaks down in eternal inflation. We derive a dual description of eternal inflation in terms of a deformed Euclidean
CFT located at the threshold of eternal inflation. The partition function gives the amplitude of different geometries of the threshold surface in the
no-boundary state. Its local and global behavior in dual toy models shows that the amplitude is low for surfaces which are not nearly conformal to the
round three-sphere and essentially zero for surfaces with negative curvature. Based on this we conjecture that the exit from eternal inflation does
not produce an infinite fractal-like multiverse, but is finite and reasonably smooth. link.springer.com...

For those like myself who can't understand it here is a brief breakdown.

The new Hawking-Hertog assessment indicates that there can only be universes that have the same laws of physics as our own. That conjecture means
that our Universe is typical and so observations we make from our viewpoint will be meaningful in developing our ideas of how other universes emerged.

Mind-bending as these ideas are, they will be of real help to physicists as they develop a more complete theory of how the Universe came into being,
according to Prof Hertog.
"The laws of physics that we test in our labs did not exist forever. They crystallised after the Big Bang when the universe expanded and cooled. The
kind of laws that emerge depends very much on the physical conditions at the Big Bang. By studying these we aim to get a deeper understanding of where
our physical theories come from, how they arise, and whether they are unique."

One tantalising implication of the findings, according to Prof Hertog, is that it might help researchers detect the presence of other universes by
studying the microwave radiation left over from the Big Bang - though he says that he does not think it will be possible to hop from one universe to
another. www.bbc.co.uk...

The only real issue with this particular theory is that we can only understand our laws of physics, so of course we would only be able to detect only
those universes that follow our laws. Under the Quantum Cavitation (QC) theory, older sets of universes could have completely different set of physics
that they might have abided by. This is why "QC" is being looked into as an possible scientific explanation for oddities in Dark Energy detections and
cosmic background radiation ill-regularities.

It's funny that Hawking backed this report since it was he that coined the idea of "QC" to begin with. Maybe he gave up on trying to understand the
notion of what he started, but either way "QC" is something that just might be testable. Though to be fair this last paper he helped out on really
doesn't discredit "QC", it just basically states that currently we shouldn't be able to detect anything that falls outside of what we currently know
to be true in science. It's a fair and rational statement, that's easily testable.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.